Reverse Analysis: Why Did Hawaii Get A Different DNC Certification Than Other States?

The blogosphere was on fire for the last few days concerning an article entitled – The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie – published by JB Williams of Canada Free Press concerning the two very different certifications issued by the DNC (and signed by Pelosi) concerning Obama’s nomination. (While the CFP site is running, the Williams article mysteriously does not appear accessible at this time – but you can follow the analysis and read the follow up by Williams – at The Right Side of Life blog.)

THE ISSUE: One DNC certification attests to Obama being “legally qualified” under the US Constitution, while the other simply states that Obama was duly nominated.

Apparently, the certification containing the “legally qualified” language was sent to Hawaii, while the certification containing only the “duly nominated” language was sent to the other 49 states.

I am awaiting confirmation that the above is accurate, but for the sake of argument we shall assume Hawaii received the certification which contained this language:

“…the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”…

We shall also assumethat the other 49 states received a certification which did not include the “legally qualified” language.

The question raised by JB Williams concerns why two very different certifications were used when the one with the “legally qualified” language would suffice for all 50 states. It’s a very fair question.

To answer the question, it has been suggested that Hawaiian law requires the more detailed certification attesting to the legal qualifications under the US Constitution while the other states do not. However, I cannot find anything unique in the election laws listed in the Hawaii Revised Statutes that sets it apart from other states.

(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

I’ve looked at many different state election codes through this process, especially New Jersey and Connecticut. So far, I have not seen a reference to a specific provision of law in Hawaii which would require that the DNC prepare a unique certification just for Hawaii.

[Hawaii does require the “legally qualified” language as quoted above.]

So, the next thing necessary was to review the prior certifications used by the DNC in 2000 and 2004 to see if they contained the “legally qualified” language. Those were provided by reader Justin Riggs in comments to this blog. Kerry’s 2004 certification is here. Gore’s 2000 certification is here.

Neither contains the “legally qualified” language.

This would appear to end the argument… unless we reverse the question.

Everyone has been asking, “Why was the legally qualified language left out of the DNC certifications?” But maybe we need to turn the question around and ask the following:

Why was the “legally qualified” language inserted into the DNC certification for Hawaii?

Is it possible that Hawaii specifically required an assurance from the DNC that Obama was eligible?

“I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen…”

As I have previously reported, there’s no possible way Fukino could legally certify Obama was a natural born citizen. All she could do was state that – according to records she claims to have examined – he was born in Hawaii. But being born in Hawaii does not change the fact that Obama was British at birth. Needless to say, I was perplexed at the language chosen by Fukino (which was more likely chosen for her).

How did Fukino come to the conclusion Obama was a natural born citizen?

We need to know whether Fukino was relying on the DNC certification when she stated that Obama was a natural born citizen.

If we had a truly free press, we could get such an answer. But we don’t and Fukino has managed to dodge future inquiry by stating:

“I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

Since the 2000 and 2004 certifications do not appear to include the “legally qualified” language, investigators now need to focus their attention on why the “legally qualified” language was inserted in the DNC certification to Hawaii.

Perhaps we’ve been looking at the question backwards? We need to find out whether the DNC certifications sent to Hawaii in 2000 and 2004 contained the “legally qualified” language or whether Hawaii received the same DNC certification as the other states.

If Hawaii – prior to the 2008 election – received the same DNC certification as the other states then we will truly be onto something. If the “legally qualified” language was in the prior certifications given to Hawaii by the DNC in 2000 and 2004 then this is probably a non-issue.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on September 14, 2009 at 10:24 AM and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

119 Responses to “Reverse Analysis: Why Did Hawaii Get A Different DNC Certification Than Other States?”

But there’s no indication on the 2000 and 2004 certifications (the ones provided by Justin Riggs) from which state(s) they were filed.
[Ed. Thanks for the update. I have revised the blog to portray this. The question needs to be answered whether the DNC sent the same cert to Hawaii in 2008 as was sent in 2004 and 2000. If it’s the same then there is no issue here.]

Now we need the Hawaiian versions (if they exist) of the DNC certifications for Gore (2000) and Kerry (2004). Someone should be able to obtain them from archives in the state of HI, correct? If there is no difference in the language between the HI version and the other 49 states in ’00 and ’04, then it is a recent insertion for HI. This seems to be another key piece of the puzzle. Were the posted Gore and Kerry certs both obtained in/from CA? The notary’s stamp is only visible on one of the two.

This all shows the contempt held by public officials for the voting public. All of these documents relating to the election process should have been put online as a matter of routine. We should not have to prise this information out of them – after the event.

I am looking into the election statute by the SOS in my state. Under law it states that a declaration of candidacy must contain: a statement that the candidate will qualify if elected. I assume this means a statement from the candidate (Obama) themself. I will be asking the SOS for access to that declaration and ask what discovery was undertaken to verify the declaration.

I fear that sometimes in sharpening the focus on an issue people might lose sight of the big picture. For example, in focusing on whether Obama is a natural born citizen, some seem to totally discount Obama’s refusal to provide his real birth certificate. But both nbc and bc are important issues.

Similarly, some may oversimplify the Pelosi issue when they read Leo’s above comment that “The question needs to be answered whether the DNC sent the same cert to Hawaii in 2008 as was sent in 2004 and 2000. If it’s the same then there is no issue here.” But the issue of Pelosi’s fraud remains regardless of what the 2K and 2004 HI certs said.

Just as the nbc issue should not be dismissed even if Obama was born in Hawaii, so the issue of Pelosi’s election fraud/racketeering should not be dismissed even if Hawaii’s 2004 and 2008 candidate certifications turn out to be the same.

[Ed. That’s true, but we have a duty to get to the bottom of accusations and if they turn out to be wrong then we have a duty to say so. We need to see the Hawaii 2000 and 2004 certs to put this aspect of the fraud to a final determination.]

As with Mr Obama’s Hawaiian COLB, we cannot take any important documents posted online at face value. Everyone should contact their own State officials and insist on being given certified copies of DNC and GOP POTUS nomination certificates, (as well as the declarations submitted by the individual POTUS and Vice-POTUS candidates) going back to 1956 – the general election PRIOR to Hawai’i obtaining statehood. We can then investigate, conclusively, the motives for any changes in wording.

On a separate issue, why did the State SOSs accept nomination certificates from ANY party, which did NOT certify that the candidate, being put forward by the party, was eligible to serve as POTUS. Even if the Parties had all so certified, that still would not absolve the State SOSs from carrying out, with due diligence, their own investigations (as is required of them by their OATH to UPHOLD The Constitution of The USA). This reminds me of the Bernard Madoff PONZI scheme scandal – everyone relying on someone else to do the checking.

“Each declaration of candidacy shall state the candidate’s full name, residence address, office for which such person proposes to be a candidate and that if elected the person will qualify.”
[Ed. Yes, other states have similar requirements so why does Hawaii get the special cert while the others don’t? Has this been done in other years? That’s the question.]

Leo,
I think that the question should be, why don’t the forms in All states require the Constitutionally”” or Legally”” eligible language. Duly means “”properly “in both Encarta and Websters. I woulkd say properly is a relative term. I wonder how many states are like Florida, and have a Candidate’s oath of Cobnstitutional Eligibility that is circumvented by the political parties. I think I will give Gov. Charlie Crist the opportunity to do the right thing, and investigate why this oath is being bypassed.

Leo, I obtained a copy of the certification Indiana’s Democratic Chairman and the DNC filed with the Indiana Election Division. It lacks certification on the issue of Obama’s constitutional eligibility. Indiana law clearly provides that a candidate for president and vice president must meet the constitutional requirement. I.C. 3-8-1-6 reads: “A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.” The certification statute, however, does not include this requirement. I.C. 3-10-4-5 (a) reads: “The state chairman of each political party shall certify to the election division the names of the nominees of the party for President and Vice President of the United States and the state of which nominee is a resident.” By omitting the requirement in the certification statute, Indiana law fails to ensure compliance with the constitutional eligibility requirement it mandates under I.C. 3-8-1-6. Our state election authorities do not independently seek to verify a candidate’s NBC status.

[… Why was the “legally qualified” language inserted into the DNC certification for Hawaii? …]

Fair question. Not one that we’ll likely be able to get an answer to.

[… Needless to say, I was perplexed at the language chosen by Fukino (which was more likely chosen for her). …]

The language was DEFINITELY chosen for her. Several weeks ago, I contacted Janice Okubo, and asked her how Ms. Fukino could make such a statement. In an email communication, she informed me that the Attorney General of HI had reviewed and approved the statement. Attempts to contact the AG (Mark Bennett) have gone unanswered.
[Ed. Good work Justin. Isn’t it funny how they tell you the AG approved the statement but they don’t tell you who wrote the statement – whose idea it was…It’s supposed to be Fukino’s statement, but how did she come to that particular wording? Very interesting. ]

[… We need to know whether Fukino was relying on the DNC certification when she stated that Obama was a natural born citizen. …]

I don’t know how we could possibly ascertain this. Could you provide any guidance? I’d be happy to knock on doors, if there were any to knock on.

[Ed. If we could ask her, then we could know… fat chance with the insulation in place. So we should be able to get an answer form the AG, right? Yeah. Might as well try.]

[… We need to find out whether the DNC certifications sent to Hawaii in 2000 and 2004 contained the “legally qualified” language or whether Hawaii received the same DNC certification as the other states. …]

I’ve already ordered them. Should be here no later then a week or so from today.

[Ed. Good job.]

Good post, Leo. Interesting take on the issue. Sometimes flipping things on their head is the only way to shake the truth out of them.

You’re invited to call in to The Awakening tonight and give us your point of view. J.B. Williams will be our guest, as well as Joan Swirsky. They are both all ears, as are Hanen, myself, and the compatriot correspondents we all share. It’s 9-11pm ET.

RE: Bob Says: September 14, 2009 at 10:44 am “Hawaii has required the certification language since at least 1993. But there’s no indication on the 2000 and 2004 certifications (the ones provided by Justin Riggs) from which state(s) they were filed. [Ed. Thanks for the update. I have revised the blog to portray this. The question needs to be answered whether the DNC sent the same cert to Hawaii in 2008 as was sent in 2004 and 2000. If it’s the same then there is no issue here.]”

Maybe I am missing something but I can not find significance in this issue. HI clearly required the eligibility language since 1993 as Bob said. So for argument’s sake, lets assume that the 2004 and the 2000 documents do not contain that language.

So what? DNC and HI will claim that it was a bureaucratic error – that it was innocently assumed by the DNC that the required language by the other 49 states is acceptable. Some low level person either in HI or at the DNC discovered that it is not sufficient and it was corrected accordingly in 2008. To make a good legal case out of this, in my opinion, is very difficult, even if HI and the DNC would cooperate, and nearly impossible if they don’t, which is likely. HI could for example, retroactively obtain the required documents for the 2004 and 2000 nominees, and claim end-of-the story.

[Ed. They can claim what they like, but if the 00 and 04 certs don’t match, there’s smoke.]

Leo…Could you let us know what the meaning of this might be???
———————–
“On September 9, 2009, a subpoena was issued by the District Court of the United States, 3rd Circuit, and has been served via registered mail (#RE184168898US) on the Consulate General of Kenya in Los Angeles.

The subpoena commands him to produce and permit the inspection and copying of the Certificate of Birth of Barack Hussein Obama II.”

[Ed. It would be significant if the Judge ordered the subpoena, but I think this is done by counsel and simply filed with the clerk. I’m not inclined to think it’s any big deal, not unless this was ordered by a Judge. And I don’t think the Judge would have jurisdiction to compel foreign/diplomatic compliance.]

So, essentially, one might say the DNC and its agents have usurped SCOTUS; i.e., declared a legally binding determination of fact in lieu of a formal SCOTUS finding to resolve the POTUS eligibility for a son of a British alien father; a child born in the United States but under the jurisdiction of the British Government and as a subject of the British Crown.

The DNC did not say they “believed” Obama to meet all qualifications. They did not say it was their opinion he was eligible. They appear to have unilaterally certified he was qualified and eligible to be POTUS.

I can see if a party believes they are correct and acts upon same when such an open legal question exists, that they also do so with a certain indemnity arising from the unresolved nature of the question.

However, this seems quite different. It seems to me the one thing the DNC and its agents had a duty to know when “certifying” Obama’s POTUS eligibility was the full state of the law and the complete set of facts bearing upon his POTUS eligibility.

The fact that candidate Obama was a British Citizen at birth born under the jurisdiction of the British Government was not withheld or hidden by candidate Obama. It seems implausible the DNC did not know or could not have known this.

It’s as if the political parties have come to believe they are above the law and enjoy an unimpeachable extra-constitutional monopoly on the electoral process and the Electoral College itself.

Perhaps they do. They appear to have pushed very hard accordingly.

Now the pendulum returns.

[Ed. Same analysis for Obama, he might have believe he was eligible but he can’t certify that he was.]

Dr. Fukino did say that Obama was born in Hawaii… but she did not say which “Vital Record” was used to make that statement. It could have been nothing more than the sworn statement of an Obama relative (for example, his mother, or one of his grandparents).

Dr. Fukino has issued two statements, and neither statement claimed that the COLB produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters is authentic, nor that it matches information in any Vital Record they have on file in Hawaii.

While I believe that the “dualer” issue is the more important issue, the “birther” issue still merits attention until such point that the State of Hawaii releases a certified copy of Obama’s original hospital birth certificate, confirming his birth specifically at the Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i at 7:24 PM on August 4, 1961.

That is the information that Obama has claimed, and it has yet to be confirmed by any official document from the State of Hawaii.

Now consider that the Official Report of the Kenyan National Assembly on Wednesday, 5th November, 2008, said that “the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country“.

Is it possible that Obama could have literally been born on Kenyan soil, yet Dr. Fukino could be legally accurate when she said he was born in Hawaii? I think the answer is “YES!” How? If Obama was adopted in Honolulu, Hawaii by Lolo Soetoro, A NEW BIRTH CERTIFICATE WOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED! That new birth certificate would list the adoption location as the birth location, and Dr. Fukino could use that “Vital Record” to claim that he was born in Hawaii.

Leo,
I regularly read (and enjoy) your blog. Great work!
Interestingly, both DNC certifications you provide links to, Kerry’s 2004 and Gore’s 2000, have the same “typo” that JBWilliams pointed out in Obama’s 2008 certification(s): …on July 26 though 29, 2004,… and … on August 14 though 17, 2000…

Most states, Hawaii included, produce a Fact Sheet for Presidential Elections so candidates don’t have to research the election laws in all 50 states. Hawaii produced several for the 2008 election, but I can’t find any for the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Also, do we know if the Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113 that you referenced in this article was recently revised to include a Constitutional certification? I know several states revised their election law as a result of the 2000 recount in Florida.

If we are looking into fraudulent certifications of eligibility, then shouldn’t we be re-openning the investigation of Mc Cain’s and Calero’s certifications too. Perhaps as important as a possible usurper in the White House is the possibility of a usurper election system at least the candidate certification process between the parties and the Secretaries Of the States. It would be interesting also to see if the cert from the Republican Party to Hawaii for McCain included the “legally qualified” language.

All very interesting, though I wonder if this is all just another good whiff of an already well smoking gun when it comes to the whole NBC issue.
Thank you Leo Donofrio. Keep up the good work!
[Ed. McCain isn’t President, but people should know that I sued to have him removed from NJ ballots as well. It’s moot as to MCain. He’s not President. He wasn’t eligible either, but since he’s not President, it doesn’t really matter.]

That subpoena in the Berg appeal was actually issued by the U.S. District Court and served on the Consul General of Kenya. Here’s a link to the multiple pages of the subpoena, including the attached letter from Paul Andrew Mitchell who is the attorney representing the federal government in that appeal.

Here’s an excerpt of the letter that AG Mitchell sent to the Consul General.

Greetings Honorable Consul General:

My office legally represents the United States (Federal Government) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, in the case of Berg v. Obama et al., Appeal No. 08-4443:

[Ed. OK, this person is billing himself as a Private Attorney General, then he;s making reference to RICO statutes and cases where the concept of a Private AG has been mentioned by the court. This person does not actually represent the US Govt. He appears to be alleging to represent the US people by taking this matter into his own hands. This is not what you think it is at all.]

Please be advised that newly found evidence renders it appropriate formally to serve your good offices with a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, duly issued by the District Court of the United States for the Central District of California.

The purpose of this SUBPOENA will be to command your good offices to produce and permit inspection and copying of an authentic original of the attached CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH of Barack Hussein Obama II on August 4, 1961 A.D., at Coast Provincial General Hospital in Mombasa, Republic of Kenya.

Please be aware that there is a separate District Court proceeding presently underway in the United States District Court for the Central District of California which also seeks to compel authentication of said REGISTRATION OF BIRTH: Keyes et al. v. Obama et al., case number 8:09-cv-82 (USDC, Los Angeles, California, USA).

[Ed. OK, this person is billing himself as a Private Attorney General, then he;s making reference to RICO statutes and cases where the concept of a Private AG has been mentioned by the court. This person does not actually represent the US Govt. He appears to be alleging to represent the US people by taking this matter into his own hands. This is not what you think it is at all.]

Ah, ha. How ridiculous is it then that he can subpoena a foreign official on behalf of the federal government. My question then becomes – Why would the court clerk accept this piece of crap subpoena or issue it through the U.S. District Court?

In Rhodes v Obama the judge questioned Orly on the burden of proof.
It would seem that the Kenyan BC along with the affidavit of Lucas would establish a prima facia case thereby shifting the burden to the defendant…. But this being said, the questioning about whether she would follow orders from McCain or Bush clearly did not favor Rhodes.

[Ed. Especially the McCain part… he was born in Panama, not a military base but even if born on military base, US law says that does not confer citizenship. She will now be made out to be partisan. ]

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/constituti on_transcript.html

I do not believe that Hawaii sec. 11-113 applies to any certification by the national party or the national party convention officers. I think it refers to a certification from the state party. After all, 11-113 says in (c)(1)(C) that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party. The Democratic National convention can’t speak for the state Democratic Party, which is why I think 11-113 only applies to a letter from the state party.

[Ed. The statute says:

(b) A “national party” as used in this section shall mean a party established and admitted to the ballot in at least one state other than Hawaii or one which is determined by the chief election officer to be making a bona fide effort to become a national party. If there is no national party or the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates’ names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates’ names off the ballot completely.

(c) All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:

(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;]

Leo,good show.Everyone wants to keep up the good fight,but knows this is leading to blood in the streets from our own neglect of the constitution.Nobody is calling you negative anymore.The comments on the show are on Arlen’s blog.Too bad you opted out of giving your views on Taitz.She’s made too many blunders to really be kosher. http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/09/joan-swrisky-and-jb-williams-on.html

In Rhodes v Obama the judge questioned Orly on the burden of proof.
QUOTE from A-1: “It would seem that the Kenyan BC along with the affidavit of Lucas would establish a prima facia case thereby shifting the burden to the defendant…. But this being said, the questioning about whether she would follow orders from McCain or Bush clearly did not favor Rhodes.”

Leo’s response: [Ed. Especially the McCain part… he was born in Panama, not a military base but even if born on military base, US law says that does not confer citizenship. She will now be made out to be partisan. ]

Let’s not pretend that Capt. Rhodes has looked into the history of John McCain. He didn’t become POTUS. He’s wasn’t giving her orders. Without good cause, she should always follow the orders of the POTUS.

You dropped off the call, I think, before Arlen made his big announcement about Orly Taitz. He says big news is coming tomorrow that will affect her ability to continue in these eligibility cases.

The only things I can think of that would affect HER ability to pursue these cases would be a) having her law license revoked and/or b) being held in contempt or prosecuted for knowingly submitting false documents to a court of law (i.e. the obvious Kenyan BC forgery).

My guess is (and it is a guess) that the DNC certification did at one time include the “legally qualified” language for all 50 states. Why not include it for all? Regardless of what the DNC bylaws say, it’s the safe way to go on the certification document itself. We should dig until we find the shift away from consistent wording. Obviously, one would have to go back further than 2000. I’ll go out on a limb here and predict that the “legally qualified” language was jettisoned at the same time that the now infamous “typo” was introduced into the cert.

When this change/shift is found, we should ask what was happening in the election year in which it occurred. What were the big national news stories? What were the hot political and social topics? Perhaps there was a trigger for the change in the cert (i.e. the timing was right). There may be clue that helps to uncover the force(s) behind the “Federal Beast.”

I will make requests for the ’04, ’00 and older certs in my state and others if possible.

As for Joan, she may be correct. Perhaps this was planned decades in advance without any specific candidate in mind, but when they right guy came along, he was prepared for installation. After all, patience is a virtue, and even the “bad guys” can claim it.

Now that’s a conspiracy theory! Well, at least a lousy hypothesis.

The recent stories/videos depicting corruption within ACORN smack of conspiracy. Look at the fairly consistent responses given by ACORN workers in Maryland, D.C., and New York to the ridiculous scenario presented. It’s stunning. That Obama has ties to ACORN is no secret.

BTW, I absolutely agree with you regarding Washington’s warning on political parties. The people behind this fraud are counting on keeping the country split by getting us high on divisive political rhetoric. It’s so seductive and thus an easy trap to spring. Almost all of us have taken the bait for years. It gives the government enormous power by keeping us off balance and distracted with nonsense. Instead of the citizens of America uniting and keeping a watchful eye on Washington, they’re hating their neighbor for being a Democrat or Republican.

Freedom and Liberty must prevail. To hell with our wonderful two-party system.

P.S. Kudos on alluding to the 9th and 10th Amendments. They are so broadly empowering and yet get so little attention as compared to the 1st and 2nd.

When you quoted the Hawaii election code just below my comment, you didn’t include (C), yet that is the important part.

[Ed. (C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.
It says state and national party. The national party operates the state party.]

quote : Let’s not pretend that Capt. Rhodes has looked into the history of John McCain. He didn’t become POTUS. He’s wasn’t giving her orders. Without good cause, she should always follow the orders of the POTUS. reply: That’s besides the point.First,the judge asking those questions laid the field for having her put down in the record as appearing to be partisan and racist.For that is what is being parroted in the media with regards to anyone in the eligbility movement.Second,a competent attorney would anticipate loaded questions,fair or not,and prepare the plaintiff to answer them.Bush,Gore and Mccain should’ve been a given or at least possible questions asked of her.The old victimhood and racist angle.Why is everyone picking on Obama? That ploy.Third,the judge mentioned he was going to go over the published records and make a decision on Wednesday.Think the judge is coming to this blog or factcheck.org and other accepted published sources on Obama?Either way you slice it it doesn’t bode well for the plaintiff.The judge and Orly both are showing us bias and incompetence.You just have to read between the lines.The judge looking at published records instead of putting his foot down and going for the gold is telling.Meanwhile,this all gets dragged out in drama,and the focus will shift to her other case.You know,the one where the defense forgot to show up and opened this can of worms for Orly to play in while there is silence on the other lawsuits.

quote : [Ed. Aware or not, it’s going to bite her in the backside. ] reply:You bet.It will be Chester Arthur biting her and then Orly in her other lawsuit.It won’t look like it with this soldier,but it will become clear when Orly’s other case ends and the curtain closes.

I listened to your explanation (on tonight’s Awakening Radio program) regarding standing, and I followed what you were saying with regard to one citizen not being able to prove a (not your words) “unique injury”. So why in this case of all citizens being harmed equally regarding candidates that did not meet the eligibility requirements wouldn’t a class action law suit be appropriate?

[Ed. If you had enough names joining a Quo warranto petition as third parties, you might have a shot… like 10,000,000 plaintiffs or something like that…who knows?]

A Constitutional Lawyer and has read the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill, but about the effects on our Constitution. It’s a broader picture than just health care reform.

All of you and those to whom you communicate had better situp and pay attention;

Once this sort of thing happens, it will be irreversible.

The blog will concentrate of my concerns as a retired attorney about the imminent and growing threats to our Constituton and our form of government. We have reason to be very afraid of what is happening.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE BILLS ?

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might beunconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services,and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health
care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted,major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

The paragraph below is really frightening

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of
what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation.If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

I have followed your website since June, 09. I respect your legal opinion on the subject because you state facts and on those facts make logical conclusions based on them. You also do not allow into your blog those attempt to hijack it based on propaganda and lies. I have also stated that your ability to explain this legal mess to non-attorneys is instrumental. Again, thank you for that.

I listened to you, J.B. Williams and others on Sentinel Talk Radio. Most all of your points are on topic and legally based. However, I have some concern with your tone and other off topic statements made. These are only my opinions and hope that you take them as only helpful criticism to them.

– Only 5% of the time your voice is very calm and sounds reasonable. The other 95% it seems frantic and combative. Please calm your voice when speaking in public on the issue. Obots may try to label you as a loon and damage your current integrity and credibility on the NBC legal status.

[Ed. You can take the boy out of Queens…but you can’t take queens out of the boy. Ever see My Cousin Vinny? I get excited and that’s how I speak. Sorry… it’s genetic. I don’t pretend to be Mr. Cool. I’m pissed off and it shows. That’s the truth of the situation. I’m not trying to front or portray myself as some cool character in all of this. I’m very very worried and angry that the nation is in this mess.]

– Some of your comments were speculative and theoretically conspiratory. Although I agree with 99% of what you said, those statements which you have no proof makes for good fodder for those fighting to hide Obama’s background.

[Ed. When I speak about facts, the facts speak for themselves. When I give my opinion, that’s just my opinion. I don’t expect people to believe everything I say and I don’t ask them to. Sometimes I’m trying to cause alarm. People need to wake up.]

– Some of the other quests were going down that road hard. I would recommend that if you notice folks making speculative statements not based on fact that you call them out on it and distance yourself from their statements.

As I’m not an attorney and can’t offer legal advise to your work, I just wanted to give what I can with constructive criticism if I could. Please keep up the great work your doing as I am behind you 100%.
[Ed. I appreciate your comments. I just be myself when I am on the air. Maybe I had too much java yesterday.]

On Wednesday, 9/16, a a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hear a case regarding Hillary Clinton’s Constitutional eligibility to serve as Secretary of State.

“The Judicial Watch lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel. The lawsuit maintains that Mr. Rodearmel cannot serve under Secretary of State Clinton as it would force him to violate an oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to ‘support and defend’ and ‘bear true faith and allegiance’ to the Constitution of the United States.

‘Our goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution,’ said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. ‘The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until 2013. We hope the court puts a stop to this attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution in the name of political expediency.’ ”

Now why can’t we get Foreign Service Officer to question Obama’s eligibility? There doesn’t seem to be an issue of standing in Rodearmel v. Clinton.

Why is a special three-judge panel of U.S. District Court judges in D.C. being convened to hear this case? Why wouldn’t the Supreme Court hear this case?

In response to “…it doesn’t really matter..”
There are at least two different issues being discusssed; the NBC definition issue and the election process fraud issue which in its totality certainly involves what may have been done wrongly for McCain or Calero. If McCain were to have been ousted off the ballots then perhaps the vote for one of the other Rep. candidates would have run a significantly more aggressive race. Maybe another Rep. candidate would have taken up the NBC definition cause and forced a public vetting of the Dem. and other candidates.

And isn’t the certification letter from the Rep. party to Hawaii atleast mildly interesting? What if it does not have the “leagally qualified” language.

If Hawaii required the constitutionally qualified phrase, and Pelosi was good enough to give it to them, then who has standing to take legal action against Pelosi for making the bogus statement to Hawaii?

Apparently the Hawaiian Chapter of AXJ has discovered the original divorce documents filed in 1964, and among them has discovered that Stanley Ann Dunham (with the help of others) did in fact present a Certificate of Live Birth of a child born in Mobassa, Kenya, which is being studied to see if in fact it belongs to a child by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, II, although Barack Hussein Obama Sr. never admitted to having a son, was never notified of any divorce documents filed against him, and was killed in Kenya for political reasons.

The document presented by the Hawaiian Authorities includes a number “19” that does not correspond to any numbering order in the documents recorded in 1961, and they know it.

They possibly could be responsible for Fraud against the American People if this preliminary investigation turns out to be true.
————————————————————-

I heard the broadcast too. We need to appreciate how difficult this is. There are emotional components where our feelings and fears interact on a level playing field as we are equally human. There are historical and informational components where we are influenced by our experiences, whether shared or unshared, they represent our personal truths. Then there are the intuitive thoughts, the exploratory and inquisitional interests that are native to the way our individual minds work, and all minds work differently to some degree.

We need to not fall in love with our opinions. We need to not believe everything we think. We need to learn to want to be wrong so we become more free to be correct.

Why? Because “fact” cares not one whit about any of that.

There is somewhat of a curtain between those trained in analytical thinking and those who have not been schooled to do so.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it really. Leo was on air with very intelligent people; thoughtful people; faithful people. They too had analytical minds.

But I could tell by their reactions they haven’t been boot camped in the discipline of analytical inquiry; a rigor of speech and question that is spontaneous but driven by a merciless deconstruction of information, ideas and emotion, the very purpose of which is to separate the corruption of our human feeling from the moment of logic’s test.

If you’re not used to it, it’s inherently offensive. But it’s a precious skill and Leo is gifted with the ability to do it out loud and blessed with the patience and love to let it flow and explain it where he needs to. That’s the artist.

We need to realize we are approaching the initial phase of beginning to grasp what has happened to our nation. The trap is believing we are approaching the end with a conclusion nearly at hand. No. The end of this is still very far ahead. There is much to sort through. This is just getting started and the “comfort zone” of how we think about things is very much a part of how things got this screwed up. There are more sacred cows to gore, and no pretty way to do it. We’re all going to be wearing some mud as we dig through this. Think if it a badge of honor and not a mark of shame.

I, for one, admire Leo’s remarkably disciplined mind. I write here hoping to create a frame of reference for those who are new to the rigor and often brutal style of disciplined analytical thinking, and find it offensive.

We need to get over that. We need to get to the bottom of this. The Leo’s of our nation can’t do it alone. He’s being open and vulnerable and sharing because he too is learning and growing and through all of us he is looking to grow and share more about the sea change in national self-awareness that’s unfolding before our eyes.

I wonder if the claims of AXJ Hawaii are true? They claim to have found documents in the original 1964 divorce decree – something indicating that Stanley Ann Dunham (with the help of others) applied for a COLB for a child born in Kenya. I can’t seem to find out anything more on this – whether it is true or not.

If the Hawaiian authorities are involved in a cover-up this would be huge.

It’s seems so far-fetched ….yet do you recall that lady who worked in the law firm Obama was tied with in Chicago? I can’t recall her name but she wrote a scholarly paper on why NBC should no longer be required to be POTUS. That’s another ‘dot’ which connects very well.

On the current topic: Fukino stated that she reviewed vital records on file at the DOH. DOH wouldn’t have a copy of the DNC nomination papers on file. Would they?

Whatever documents they do have (possibly merely an affidavit from a relative or even Obama himself), they apparently asked the Hawaiian AG if those documents could be interpreted in such a way to allow them to state that the records verify that he’s a NBC. (Did Obama give them permission to review these documents, one wonders?)

Notice that they do not say that the State of Hawaii verifies that he’s a NBC. Nor that the AG of Hawaii verifies that. Nor that the DOH verifies that. Only that the “vital records” verify that he’s a NBC.

Of course, the truth of the matter depends upon what the vital records actually state, the AG’s interpretation of what makes one a NBC (given that even the SCOTUS has never ruled on a definition), what the vital records consist of, and whether or not anybody authenticated those documents in the first place. Whatever those documents are.

There seems to be a group determined to get Orly off her case. I was visiting the I.O. blog. Then Sinclair will submit a complaint to Judge Carter???? What is all this about especially if he grants her discovery from my understanding and a court date order was issued.I hope things settle down.My feeling is anyone who has the finances and time and knowledge can file a case.It is a free country!

COLUMBUS, Ga. — During a hearing in U.S. District Court Monday, an attorney for an Army officer fighting deployment to Iraq questioned Barack Obama’s legal right to serve as president, asserting he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

Judge Clay Land, inquisitive throughout the 90-minute hearing, said he will issue a decision by noon Wednesday on Capt. Connie Rhodes’ request for a temporary restraining order to block her deployment.

leo you understand that the previous years will most likely show same certification because the fraud is not the certification but that there was a cert in aug 2008 using false evidence. you complained about the birther issue will shut the door on dualer issue if obama does have long form- but you are doing the same thing- the same cert in previous years will shut the door in msm on the real fraud issue. not just one state either.

I dont know if you heard mr williams definition of natural born (that is why he didnt want to discuss McCain) right when you went on the air.
If you did I cant believe you let him get away with it. This guy is your enemy in that respect. You should see what he is writing on the comments in his latest column.

[Ed. Going over the show from last night, he made the comment about not having to be born on US soil about a minute before I got through on the line. I totally missed that comment. Thanks for pointing it out. Furthermore, his comments about McCain being eligible coincide with his comments on the show… he’s a right wing apostle. Furthermore, I broke it down for him – exactly what we are looking for in the 2000 and 2004 certs from the DNC to Hawaii. His latest column doesn’t even mention any of it.

I don’t want to put the guy down. He appears sincere but he’s just wrong as to McCain and his partisan attitude provides cannon fodder for the Obama supporters. His facts were not in order on the first story and he doesn’t seem to understand that the story is dead unless something happened with the certs in 2008 that did not happen in 2000 and 2004. This is very partisan and not what I’m about.]

Sc code of laws 7-13-350 says, ” Political parties nominating candidates by primary or convention must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification to the authority charged by law with preparing the ballot.”

Thr DNC chairwoman Carol Fowler said, “The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.”

Carol Fowler is saying obama is a US citizen and a natural born citizen. How did she verify this? If she used factcheck.org, she has committed a felony in that obama stated he was a citizen of Kenya at birth until age 21. South Carolina is relying totally on what Carol Fowler has said in the letter. WHERE IS HER PROOF? It is in Hawaii and Hawaii has not let anyone see his original “birth certificate” with documentation.

Someone needs to check these dnc chair persons out and require information oh how they “certified” obama to be qualified and to be on the ballot! How about a lawsuit LEO D?

I don’t see any proof from that AXJ-Hawaii that Stanley Ann Dunham did in fact present a Certificate of Live Birth of a child born in Mobassa, Kenya during her divorce application. Looks like another wild, unsubstantiated claim to me.

[Ed. So, it’s looking like they might have only done this in 2000 and 2004. But the law they cite, 11-113 has apparently been in effect since 1993, so why in 2008 did they decide to use this language? What was so special about this year?]

Have you even seen Glenn Beck today? It’s so horrible. Yeah, you have a right to have an emotion voice because it’s going to take that to wake others up, although some are waking up. If you get a chance, go to WND and watch the other video of the Glenn Beck video done at the Acorn office. It’s very revealing.

Caolila,
Regards to “do you recall that lady who worked in the law firm Obama was tied with in Chicago? I can’t recall her name but she wrote a scholarly paper on why NBC should no longer be required to be POTUS”:

PATRIOTS: TIME FOR MAJOR PUSH ON USURPER’S CITIZENSHIP ISSUEhttp://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd467.htm
“Let me go over to Leo Donofrio’s web site. For those who have been following this the past almost one year, Leo’s was the first case to the U.S. Supreme Court and kicked without a hearing. Leo has been posting more of his research; hopefully you can book mark and read when you can because it’s important. Be sure to visit Leo’s site and scroll down for this: FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES – Admits Error In Obama Kenyan Citizenship Analysis. Why is this important? Because that web site has been the water carrier for the usurper from day one.”

This is what the place says, which is about what I remember theobamafile.com (TOF) saying too, which I can’t be 100% correct on that because I don’t have the article at TOF:

“ORIGINAL OBAMA BC DISCOVERED IN 1964 DIVORCE DOCUMENTS

AXJ-HAWAII
090709

Apparently the Hawaiian Chapter of AXJ has discovered the original divorce documents filed in 1964, and among them has discovered that Stanley Ann Dunham (with the help of others) did in fact present a Certificate of Live Birth of a child born in Mobassa, Kenya, which is being studied to see if in fact it belongs to a child by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, II, although Barack Hussein Obama Sr. never admitted to having a son, was never legally served nor notified of any divorce documents filed against him, and was killed in Kenya for political reasons.

The document presented by the Hawaiian Authorities includes a number “19” that does not correspond to any numbering order in the documents recorded in 1961, and they know it. They possibly could be responsible for Fraud against the American People if this preliminary investigation turns out to be true. “

It opens up into English for me, not Spanish or anything. And no, I don’t have the BC that they claim that they have. I don’t have a copy of that period. And I don’t think that they have posted anywhere what they claim that they have, that I know of! I’m just posting of someplace talking about it, that’s all. So I’m sorry if everyone is ticked at me because their website link doesn’t open up correctly for them, or I don’t have the actual documents. I double-checked the link and it works in English for me.

Yesterday’s radio show says you are not informed on DNC 2000 and 2004 Cert, yet your blog has a link in the comments. What am I missing. Other than that it was good to hear from you.

[Ed. I don’t have the DNC certs that were sent to Hawaii in 2000 and 2004. Those are now crucial. If the “legally qualified” language appeared in the 2000 and 2004 certs to Hawaii as per the Hawaii statute then there is no issue. If they only added that language in the cert to Hawaii in 2008 then we have smoke and where there’s smoke there’s fire. I’m doing a comprehensive post about this soon. That JB Williams does not seem to be interested in telling his readers about the proper analysis which he said he agreed with over the air last night. But either he doesn’t “get it” or doesn’t want to acknowledge it. At this point I don’t care, I’m not having anything to do with him. He’s a right a wing partisan. I’m not for either party, both must go.]

Good show last night.
It appears that the entire press have ditched journalism.
That no one on the State level has any responsibility in this.
It appears that the electorial college process is now a rubber stamp.
That counting the electorial votes is ceremonial.

And finally when all the checks have failed, the American citizens have no standing.

So what I conclude is that the gov. and the press can put anyone in the white house they want to and we have no say in the matter.

Besides waiting for the lone ranger to file a quo warranto, is there anything the American people can do??

Leo,
This Williams guy is a clown. He actually said, before you came on that US Citizen Missionary’s children born out of the country are NBCs. Both he and that Joan lady were obviously Republican party hacks, and really not really bright at all.

[Ed. Yeah, I didn’t catch that until today… I would have set him straight on that. Also, his latest follow up to the story fails to acknowledge any of the airtight analysis from last night. He did say I was professional, but today he publishes a story which fails to zero in on the Hawaii DNC cert issue which I clearly explained last night.]

Leo, I grew up Democratic from my parents as well as my husband, and later in our lives we turned to Republicans. Here’s my thinking, and please tell me what you think. I’m thinking the “truth” is right down the middle, which means you can be too far right and too far left.

So I want to know your thoughts on this. I know that Yahweh talks to us about veering off to the left or to the right, but say in the middle. I’m thinking that there can be one extreme either way, yet the truth of the matter is right down the middle road, the harder road to walk.

[Ed Every issue is its own concept… who needs a party affiliation? There’s only one issue right now — do we have a Constitution and a republic or are we done?]

In reference to Orly Taitz. I don’t know who Larry Sinclair is but it seems odd to me that he would cancel surgery to attend a hearing across the country he didn’t know anything about.

As far as Orly asking him to lie, the affidavit does not appear to support that. I understand that she was asking him to say 3 people were murdered but not that he knew 3 people were murdered. Sadly that is the legal profession (read congress). Half truths are not lies to lawyers although almost everyone else would think it is. The rules for perjury are just as complex. At best she tried to mislead the court however I have no doubt that Lucas Smith’s life would be in jeopardy.

So when a lawyer speaks, you must ask yourself, what is he/she leaving out. That’s how they work. The Judge knows this because he is one and did the same thing when he “practiced” law.

So it appears that the public has decided that Orly makes procedural mistakes, opposes Judges, and is unruly in court. So the public is now the Orly police. I hope they don’t stop there. I hope they intend to go in to every court in this country and see the same kind of stuff, judicial and clerical incompetence and trickery and generally bad rulings. Thanks for trying to ruin the closet chance we had of getting the docs from the President because you think the legal profession will benefit by a come to Jesus moment.
This stuff happens every single day in our courtrooms. It is standard procedure. Which is why most people can’t stand lawyers.

[Ed. Yeah, I didn’t catch that until today… I would have set him straight on that. Also, his latest follow up to the story fails to acknowledge any of the airtight analysis from last night. He did say I was professional, but today he publishes a story which fails to zero in on the Hawaii DNC cert issue which I clearly explained last night.]

Leo, I wouldn’t waste too much breath on JBW, he still believes that the framers used english common law to define NBC & adopt US citizenship/naturalization guidelines and he continually refutes any attempt anyone makes that it was actually the laws of nations that the framers referenced. I went rounds with him through e-mails a while back until he threatened me and have since written him off as one who puts fame before country. But if you do go up against him again, please let us know so we can be in the listening/cheering section for you!

[Ed Every issue is its own concept… who needs a party affiliation? There’s only one issue right now — do we have a Constitution and a republic or are we done?]

No, Leo, at least I’m not done yet. And in my mind, we have a CONSTITUTION too! It’s just that now we have criminals in congress, many more so than our normal suspects, and whatever party affiliation they are, doesn’t matter, they need to be removed in a huge way. There are so many people who want their country back, but I’m pretty sure that they want it better with no crooked, lying politicians. Oops, did I say “lying”? I think that’s a no-no now.

RE: “[Hawaii does require the “legally qualified” language as quoted above.] Apparently, so does Missouri Per RSMo Section 115.399(3) Each declaration of candidacy shall state the candidate’s full name, residence address, office for which such person proposes to be a candidate and that if elected the person will qualify.”

1. When you talk about the “legally qualified” language, you mean it should include “the person will qualify’?

2. I thought that the key word is “Constitution” such as for example “qualified under the Constitution”.

It seems to me that in 1. the nominee is qualified in the opinion of the undersigned, whereas in 2. the constitutional qualification is certified. The HI statement is definitely different from the Missouri statement in that respect.

Would you please clarify? Thanks.
[Ed. I am preparing a report on this for when the 2000 and 2004 DNC certs to Hawaii are located.]

[Ed. So, it’s looking like they might have only done this in 2000 and 2004. But the law they cite, 11-113 has apparently been in effect since 1993, so why in 2008 did they decide to use this language? What was so special about this year?]”

Who was the “former official” that called that in? Can anyone say CYA?

My read on this is that they may have only had different certs in ’08. What exactly did you mean by “done this” and where did you get 2000 and 2004? I’ve read it twice and don’t get that. Did I miss a critical piece of info elsewhere in the blog?

Why was the new law needed in ’93?

The assertion in the article that the DNC produced a “simpler, shorter form” for the other states is just silly. How are two certs simpler than one with the more complete wording unless they originally produced one version for all 50 states and signed and notarized all of them before realizing that, oops, HI had a statute requiring specific language? Then the legally “defective” HI document is destroyed and replaced with one that complies with the law. Otherwise, this is a matter of typing a few extra words and printing 50 identical documents from a PC. It doesn’t get any easier.

I mean, really! What would common sense dictate here? Just to be on the safe side, wouldn’t just about anyone do it like the RNC did with their certs? I’m no “Republican,” but it just makes sense to me to do it that way.
[Ed. Yes, it makes sense to do it that way, but UNLESS you have a change in the certs for 2008 to protect Obama… then this is NOT a story about Obama and his eligibility. You need to show a break in pattern JUST FOR OBAMA. If the cert sent by the DNC to Hawaii in 2000 and 2004 is not the same as the cert sent by the DNC to Hawaii in 2008, then you have a VERY BIG STORY.

Larry Sinclair is the guy who claims to have performed oral sex on Obama when he was a state senator in Illinois back in the 90s and posted YouTube videos of himself making that claim during the elections.

RE ”So it appears that the public has decided that Orly makes procedural mistakes, opposes Judges, and is unruly in court. So the public is now the Orly police. I hope they don’t stop there. I hope they intend to go in to every court in this country and see the same kind of stuff, judicial and clerical incompetence and trickery and generally bad rulings. …. This stuff happens every single day in our courtrooms. It is standard procedure. Which is why most people can’t stand lawyers. “

Generally, I support your opinion. However, I would like to add a couple of things: Leo said that the hatchet is buried. I take that means that he talks to Orly, and Orly listens to him. This is very positive and good news. Furthermore now, Orly does include the nbc issue, besides her original bc issue, every time.

It is indeed so, that the “public is now the Orly police”. She has been called just about every name including Agent Provocateur. While Orly does make mistakes, like most attorneys do, it is very strange that the “public” (including many Duelers) side with the main-stream journalists who have no limit ridiculing her.

There seems to be very little indignation towards the judges, who hide behind the Standing Doctrine as little frightened children behind their mother’s skirt, and use all possible technicalities to render the Constitution unenforceable.
The anger is concentrated on the Orly.

Why can not the “public” see that the judges have sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, so even if some mistakes are made by the attorney, the overriding issue is of utmost national importance which should govern the decision to hear the case on merit?

Instead the “public” is ferociously Monday-quarterbacking their own team.

Stay away from JB Williams. The guy is a nut job. He thinks McCain was eligible even though he was born in Panama. He even used the Law of Nations to support this belief. When I pointed out the LON actually said it has to be both blood and country, he went off. He didn’t post my comment but he did reply and say he found it hilarious. You can see it for yourselves in the comments to this article. I post as IceTrey there too.

I think McCain would be considered a NBC. Scalia seems to define 14th Amendment soil as US and its territories, unchallenged, in Miller v Albright. His blood seems to be in order. I don’t think any hairs would have been split after that basic understanding.

Doesn’t matter, I suppose. I guess, ultimately, I’d like to see both blood and soil dealt with in this matter so another crisis wouldn’t be looming on the horizon. They might try to build a US Embassy on the site in Austria where Arnold Schwarzenegger was born to give him some retroactive jus soli citizenship.
[Ed. McCain was NOT born in the Canal Zone, he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama, but even if you buy the fraud that he was born on a base, he’s still not eligible. See my latest coming today.]

One thing she ought to know by now is Larry WILL post his communications & he has not yet wavered in anything for well over a yr. regarding his truth.

…& his closing comment sums it all up:

“Until people can make their arguements without attacking others who
have worked to exposed the truth about Barack Obama, you will not see any true success. Egos will be the down fall of an effort that is far
more important than ones ego.”

8. I then asked Taitz, “Why did you decide to contact me and ask me
to come out for this hearing?” Taitz replied, “I thought you might want
to get publicity on your book and get your story out.” It was at this
time that I informed Orly Taitz while driving to my Hotel in her silver
Lexus, “My book has nothing to do with your claims on Obama’s
ineligibility and while I do want people to read the book, I do not
want to be used in this way for book publicity.”

“Now I have seen some of the comments submitted here in the previous post. Let me make something perfectly clear. I have no problem testifying under oath as to my affidavit to the Chicago Police concerning contacts with Donald Young. I do however refuse to be used in a case and asked to testify to claims made by others who I do not know and who do not speak for me. I have made it clear that I wish Taitz success just as I wish Phil Berg success. I am not going to be put in the middle of the ridiculous ego fueled feuds nor will I allow Orly Taitz or anyone to misrepresent me, my statements or my book.”

This is off topic and I hope you don’t mind me posting this from The Obama File. Everyone needs to know this if they think Republicans are any different than Democrats, they aren’t. Look how many Repubs wouldn’t even vote to stop funding of ACORN. Oh but they are introducing a bill, they know certainly won’t get passed by the Dems controlling Congress and Repubs that won’t vote.

Senate De-Funds ACORN

The Senate has voted overwhelmingly to strip ACORN of funding in the Transportation/Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. After ACORN workers were caught on tape in three cities allegedly abetting what they believed was a fraudulent mortgage and sex-trafficking scheme, only seven senators were willing to stand by them:

Leo, I fear that you are damaging your credibility by airing the conspiracy theory regarding the two DNC 2008 certs. The outcome of this situation does not change BO’s circumstances at birth. Focus on the British at birth issue – this is the unanswered question of constitutional law.

[Ed. Regardless, if the Hawaii cert changed in 2008, there is an issue there. Why in 2008 would it be required for Hawaii to have this special cert, but not in 2000 and 2004? If the certs are the same THERE IS NO ISSUE. But if the cert changed in 2008 it tells me that Hawaii wanted a specific cert to cover their ass. It won’t be long until we know the answer to that question.]

With regard to Mike the Dualer’s comments above regarding the children of missionaries born overseas, remember the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by the First Congress that consisted of 17 signers of the Constitution, and signed into law by Washington: Children of citizens born beyond the seas are NBC. The act was repealed in 1795, and is no longer operative. No statute since then has used the term natural born citizen. SCOTUS has confirmed only the children born in country to parents who are its citizens (Minor v. Happerset) with regard to NBC. Perhaps others are natural born citizens, too, even BO, but no authority has yet to confirm the conventional wisdom under which we are currently operating.

My point is, there once was a time when place of birth was irrelevant to NBC (NA1790) – and it was a concept articulated by those who wrote the constitutional requirements for president. Perhaps this remains true, even though the law was repealed and even though SCOTUS has not explicitly said so. We need SCOTUS or an Amendment to deal with all of the permutations of circumstances at birth that are currently unsettled: born abroad to US citizens; born in the US to one non-citizen; born in the US to two non-citizens.

Perhaps we should advocate a Constitutional Amendment: Natural born citizen means a person who is born in the US to parents who are both US citizens. Natural born citizen excludes a person who, at the time of birth, was subject to any jurisdiction other than that of the United States and that of the several states.

I think it is an issue of the verbiage refering to eligibility is left out of the Democratic Certifications, while the Republican Certifications retain it: because it shows intent to relax qualifications.

FCC rules require TV stations to take ads only for eligible candidates

Federal Finance Campaign laws, for candidates seeking public funding, require that they be eligible.

So why would the Democratic Party, which has oversight over their own national candidate selection, omit this requirement from certification, unless they were intending to remove liability from the party in the eventuality of an endorsed ineligible candidtate.

Because if they had no intention to endorse an ineligible candidate, but rather to guarantee for their delegatas and supporters that they would only have an eligible one, they would have inserted such language into all certifications, as a profession of such intent and guarantee thereof.

Therefore I cannot agree, that even if previous certifications did not have eligiblity affirming language, that this is a non issue…

[Ed. It would be an issue — but it would NOT be an issue about OBama. And that’s fine if that’s your beat – knocking the DNC and propping up the RNC, yes there’s an issue there that the RNC cert is a better cert with Constitutional language.

But if your beat is whether there was a shift in DNC cert policy for 2008 to protect Obama and to protect Hawaii… then you MUST show that the cert has changed in some way. If the DNC pattern has been the same, you can’t go back and allege there was a conspiracy to defraud the nation as to Obama – not if the cert in 2000 was the same as the one in 2008.

Try to get some perspective on this issue NOT the issues you have between the DNC and RNC. The RNC ran an ineligible candidate as well.]

This blog—yes, them again!—say that the McCain BC is a forgery — http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/ — and I think that this time they might have a point. But it’s equally feasible to theorize that the McCain family or some other guy forged the birth certificate, because they knew that a birth in the PCZ would mean no citizenship at birth for McCain (cf. Chin’s unrefuted essay). Or it is no forgery at all. But how can we know?

But then why didn’t the McCain parents go the extra “hundred yards” (as Chin calls it) to Panama in the first place? It’s completely illogical to assume that the US citizens stationed in the PCZ had not been informed of the citizenship ramifications of their children’s birth in the PCZ as opposed to birth in Panama. This situation had existed since the Insular Cases. Under those legal circumstances, no US parents with a sane mind would have given birth to their child in the PCZ, knowing that their child would not be a US citizen at birth. They would have gone to Panama instead.

In response to your correction, while I agree, my point was not to target the DNC, and prop up the RNC—I am an independent….

My point was the DNC has not shown integrity as to upholding their duty towards the Constitution, and has a laxity which allows it to be undermined.

That is an objective question, not a political one..[Ed. I understand, but the problem is this: JB Williams got his original facts wrong – he admits that, but now he’s trying to make it appear as if the issue is about the RNC vs the DNC… just what we don’t need. The issue of his original report was that the certs for 2008 REMOVED the “legally qualified” language. he was WRONG. The certs from 2000 and 2004 never included it to begin with.

He was forced to correct his story. The other day on the air, I explained to him what is now important… that being whether Hawaii requested that the “legally qualified” language be INSERTED into the normal DNC cert that the other states got… in 2008 this language was INSERTED… now I am awaiting Justin Riggs to get back to us when the original certs form 2000 and 2004 come in from Hawaii…. and the issue will rest on whether those match the 2008 cert to Hawaii which included the extra language.

The reverse analysis is important.

This issue may prove to be vitally important if the 2000 and 2004 certs from the DNC to Hawaii dont match the 2008 cert from the DNC to Hawaii. That would tells us that Hawaii had something to be worried about and that they wanted assurance from the DNC that they could rely on down the road. This may turn out to be a very important story, but if we allow the story to change to a partisn catfight over whether the DNC is less Constitutional than the RNC… the impact of this issue will be lost.]

If the certs are the same there is no issue here as to Obama. But if they changed it in 2008, then we better stay on point.]

I just glanced at WND this morning and there was something about DOJ lawyers for Obama saying the “birther” issue was over. My read was they are saying even the SCOTUS cannot do anything about an elected official being eligible, or not, for an office after the election has taken place.

In summary, if a crime, (fraud, deception, etc.) is successfully carried out, then there is no recourse to investigate after the election, let alone overturn the election.

They never use anything to prove that Obama is eligible because, I am sure, they do not want the information available that cast doubt on his eligibility to become more widespread.

Is that, or something like that, what they are saying? Is it likely to impress the judge?

I just discovered your blog, and I am very impressed with your knowledge, and your ability to express your thoughts clearly. I will be checking in here often.

Thank you very much on behalf of America.
[Ed. I will have more on this soon.]

That says ” —– Base Hospital” I can’t make out the word before base. It doesn’t say Coco solo which is the common story.

On page two of the pdf it reads “Submarine Base Hospital”, at Coco Solo, the US submarine base. So I don’t believe that information deviates from the common story. But in the second link to the Washington Post above the author stated that McCain’s BC said he was born in the Coco Solo “family hospital”. I don’t know if that’s a discrepancy or if it’s supposed to be the same hospital. In the Wikipedia article on Coco Solo they quote more sources, but they are vague: “small Navy hospital at Coco Solo Naval Air Station”.

But nothing will change the fact that (a) McCain was born outside of incorporated US-terriroty, and (b) he was a Panamanian citizen at birth.

From 1790-1795, the law said those born overseas to U.S. citizens would be –considered– as natural born citizens, not that they ‘are’ natural born citizens. The phrase ‘natural born’ being entirely unnecessary to accomplish naturalization of foreign born children of citizens, it was deleted by Congress in 1795.

Parts of the postings at Attorney Mario Puzo’s website give the impression that Mr. Puzo has not yet grasped the concept of interpreting the Constitution according to the ‘original meaning’ of its terms, as opposed to the by-now-discarded canon of ‘original intent’. That is to say, we are not so much interested in what one or another constitution framer intended for a term to mean, as we are interested in what the term actually, objectively meant to legislators and the citizenry at large at the time the constitution was enacted.

I also question whether Mr. Puzo is clear about the fact that Congress has no power to alter the original meaning of a constitutional term or provision by statute. The ‘inside baseball’ gyrations of naturalization law that took place in 1790 and 1795 simply can not be said to have ‘adjusted’ the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’. Is it appropriate to consider the legislative history of those laws when attempting to divine the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’? Well, sure–that’s fair enough. But to try some sort of a put-up job that those legislative acts are part and parcel of a continuum that directly contributed to the proper definition of the term, well, that will not fly.

Put simply, post-enactment events cannot be said to give ‘shape’ or meaning to terms appearing in the Constitution, as they cannot be said to have been in the minds of those who were responsible for adding the language into the pre-enactment draft, or in the minds of the citizens as a whole at the time the Constitution was enacted.

The following pre-enactment events were arguably part of a continuum of events that one can legitimately argue gave ‘shape’ or meaning to the term ‘natural born citizen':

1. Aristotle’s published position (in ‘Politics’) that those born of two parents have the highest form of citizenship, higher in quality even than those born to a an unmarried citizen mother, or to a citizen mother and a non-citizen father (Hat tip to the fine young minds of Hillsdale College);

2. Vattel’s published position (in ‘The Law of Nations’) that those who are born in a country to parents who are citizens are the ‘Naturels’ or ‘Indigenes’ (i.e., later (1795 or so) translated as ‘natives or natural born citizens), as well as his position that those born overseas to a country’s citizens are ‘reputed’ to be’ naturels (i.e., not that they ‘are’ ;

3. John Adams’ use of the term ‘natural born citizen’ in 1783 diplomatic correspondence with his counterpart in Britain negotiating supplementary terms to the Treaty of Paris; and

4. John Jay’s use of the term ‘natural born citizen’ in 1787 in a letter to Washington as the Constitution was being drafted.

Any legitimate (i.e., pre-enactment) additions to this list are certainly welcome. Any attempt to portray post-enactment events as in some way equivalent to these pre-enactment events in terms of contributing directly to the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’ is clearly illegitimate, and should not be pursued if one wishes to be regarded as non-partisan.

According to the research I have read and done, neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Obama were eligible for the office of POTUS. FWIW, it also appears clear that Mr. Jindal is not POTUS-eligible. I would be thrilled to hear him admit this publicly.

Sorry if this was already covered, but I’m just curious, is SOS Rappaport a Democrat? We did hear something about the Dems stacking states with Democrat SOS’s prior to the election….I sure hope he means to do well by all of this. He is very public about his comments….staging?

“With regard to Mike the Dualer’s comments above regarding the children of missionaries born overseas, remember the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by the First Congress that consisted of 17 signers of the Constitution, and signed into law by Washington: Children of citizens born beyond the seas are NBC. The act was repealed in 1795, and is no longer operative. No statute since then has used the term natural born citizen. SCOTUS has confirmed only the children born in country to parents who are its citizens (Minor v. Happerset) with regard to NBC. Perhaps others are natural born citizens, too, even BO, but no authority has yet to confirm the conventional wisdom under which we are currently operating.

“My point is, there once was a time when place of birth was irrelevant to NBC (NA1790) – and it was a concept articulated by those who wrote the constitutional requirements for president. Perhaps this remains true, even though the law was repealed and even though SCOTUS has not explicitly said so. We need SCOTUS or an Amendment to deal with all of the permutations of circumstances at birth that are currently unsettled: born abroad to US citizens; born in the US to one non-citizen; born in the US to two non-citizens.”

See my earlier comment about the misguided (IMHO) legal analysis of Attorney Mario Puzo of New Jersey. The above statement follows Mr. Puzo’s line of reasoning so closely as to raise the question in my mind as to whether the anonymous poster is Mr. Puzo himself, or someone who basically agrees with Mr. Puzo and follows his blog carefully. Then again, the anonymous poster might be someone who is desperately trying to find a way for SCOTUS to find Mr. Obama POTUS-eligible, and seeks to exploit what may be some daylight between Mr. Puzo and Leo Donofrio as a means to that end. In any event, I thought it was important to show where this poster is going wrong with his/her analysis.

Your latest post is, of course, as informative as your prior ones. I have wondered about the considerable span between Aristotle and Vattel. Has there been other documentation re nbc? I do recall reading here, perhaps from Leo himself, that for several centuries prior to Vattel’s book there was a globally accepted definition of nbc. Is there a source for this as I do not recall having seen one, or did I just overlook it?

I seem to recall reading that the first time the term ‘natural born citizen’ appeared in print in English in the United States was circa 1755 or so (at least it was some time prior to Adams’ use of the term in 1783). It was a translation of a Roman text about citizenship. If I find the citation in my records I’ll provide it. Or someone else can chime in.

Other than that, I don’t have anything yet to fill in the ~2000 year gap between Aristotle and Vattel.

“One circumstance where dual citizenship may run counter to expectations of government agencies is in matters of security clearance. Any person granted a Yankee White vetting must be absolutely free of foreign influence, and for other security clearances one of the grounds that may result in a rejected application is an actual or potential conflict of national allegiances.”

Yankee White
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Yankee White is an administrative nickname for a background check given in the United States for personnel working with the President.[1] Obtaining such clearance requires, in part, a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) by the Department of Defense. Contrary to popular lore, the Yankee White clearance given to personnel who work directly with the President is not a classification, but rather a type of background check.

Individuals having Yankee White clearances undergo extensive background investigation. Yankee White cleared personnel are granted access to any information for which they have a need-to-know, regardless of which organization classified it or at what level. The Yankee White clearance includes a requirement for absolute absence of any foreign influence on the individual. This means they must be a citizen of only the United States, and not have traveled to countries that are considered to be unfriendly to the United States except while in government employment and on behalf of the United States.[citation needed]

Everyone should write their secretary of state and ask this question: “Were you aware that Speaker Pelosi placed Barack Obama’s name on the Democratic ballot knowing that he was not a natural born citizen?”

There is no way she could not have known since the natural born issue was carefully scrutinized through McCain. Why wasn’t Obama vetted? Thoughts please.

Dr. Eastman, in your opinion what class of persons did the authors of the 14th amendment intend to include as being, ”subject to the jurisdiction,” of the United States? For example, what about the children of legal permanent residents, temporary visitors or tourists on tourist visas, temporary workers and illegal aliens.

Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

Mr. EASTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think, as an original matter, their understanding was that it would include any of those classifications, that subject to the full and complete jurisdiction, this allegiance-owing type of jurisdiction that we’re talking about meant that they really could have only a single citizenship. And the fact that they were children and therefore owed allegiance through their parents to a different sovereign, whether the parents were here legally or illegally, temporarily or permanently, did not alter the fact that that was the kind of sovereign jurisdiction that was envisioned in the 14th amendment.

Great analysis, but I am unclear if you have considered several issues:
1) Ms. Fukino’s October 2008 statement said nothing about being an NBC. That did not come until July 2009 (by coincidence?) on the very same day the House voted to celebrate Hawaii’s 50th, including language recognizing it as his birthplace.
2) References to Coco Solo Naval Hospital are misleading. What we today refer to by that name was built in the 1940’s as part of the war effort. However, some documents referring to its construction refer to it as a “new” hospital, begging the question, was there an “old” hospital at the naval base?
3) From the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty(1904): Article III: “The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the ENTIRE EXCLUSION of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of ANY such sovereign rights, power or authority.”
4) Various fiscal-year reports of the Governor of the Panama Canal make it clear that the US was exercising the power of U.S. federal municipal law in relation to the Canal Zone and associated properties.
5) Colon Hospital was CLOSED in 1954, and relocated in 1957 as required under the Treaty of 1955. The land it was on had been occupied and used by the Panama Canal Company or its predecessor, the Panama Railroad Company, for more than 100 years. In Article VIII of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty, the Republic of Panama explicitly waived any authority it had over any such property which was occupied and in-use (as the hospital location was). Colon Hospital, as situated until 1957, was therefore sovereign US territory.
6) The birth certificate you cite is from the Panama Canal Health Department, a US agency. According to the “Report of the Health Department of the Panama Canal” (1920, Col. H.C. Fisher, U.S.Army, Chief Health Officer) the Superintendant of Colon Hospital was Major T.J. Leary (US Army). The report DOES NOT distinguish Colon as a Panamanian facility, as for instance it does St. Thomas (“Santo Thomas”) Hospital. Reports in 1914-1920 indicate an old hospital at this site was gradually torn down and replaced with a new facility, consisting of an emergency medical unit and a dispensary. According to this report, doctors from this facility WOULD MAKE HOUSE-CALLS, into town, to ships in the harbor (and by inference, in the Canal Zone.) Any paperwork those doctors would file would, of course, be to Colon Hospital. The COLB you cite is from the Panama Canal Commission, again, a U.S. Agency.
7) According to the 1914 report, there was a dispute between the Health Department and the government of Panama regarding an ordinance related to the recording of births and deaths (though I have not been able to determine its nature).

[Ed. All persons born in the PCZ were Panama citizens at birth. This was common knowledge and is not part of any conspiracy theory. The land was Panama land. The people born there are Panama citizens. The US Government has never tried to deny that. That land was licensed for use by the USA, but the land was still national territory of Panama. The land wasn’t SOLD back to Panama. The US just left the land. You can argue on this point all you like, but the fact remains, persons born in the PCZ have always been Panama citizens and many have availed themselves of that citizenship. To pretend that McCain was’t a Panama citizen at birth is a fraud. And that’s exactly what has led to the other fraud in the White House. McCain sold you out. That’s why he’s not in court for Quo Warranto.

Where is your war hero now? He’s out there shilling for his boss, Obama.]

The birthers, the tea baggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so. To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

[Ed. Thanks for not grouping us in, we’re the Dualers. Our position is based on a legal question: How can a person who admits to being governed by Great Britain at birth be a natural born citizen of the US? That’s the question which the courts must answer. And the great weight of authority, especially the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark, and Minor indicate that Obama is not eligible.]

{You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win}

Paul
Funny you forgot to metion the hijacking of the democratic party by the extreme left. Nice try

Now I wonder why the certification language was changed to begin with (in 2000?)…could someone have simply been preparing the way for McCain (since no one knew that Obama was going to be the candidate in 2008)?

What mess! It seems that you may be the only hope for fixing it, Leo. (And boy, does it need to be fixed!)

Well, the comment I just made is ridiculous, of course, unless you consider that Obama was in their sights already as a potential candidate (which I do believe he was and also that he may have ended up a candidate much sooner than anyone anticipated) and that removing the “legally qualified” language would best be done way in advance of his running instead of right before he was running (which would be very suspicious).

On election night in November, 2004 I remember a lot of talk about Obama being a future candidate for president. To believe there was a plan, and that’s why he voted mostly “present” during his short Senate stay isn’t that far out at all.

A far-left socialist who is immune from criticism because of his race, along with total control of Congress, is to the left a dream come true.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF GETTING THIS PAGE WITHOUT THE BLACK PAGE COLOR/ WITH MY AGED EYES, IT’S MOST DIFFICULT TO READ THE SMALL PRINT ANYWAY … AND, WHEN IT IS SHADES OF GRAY IT’S MOST DIFFICULT. A LARGER FONT SIZE WOULD ALSO BE APPRECIATED.

HAS ANYONE HEARD / LEARNED WHAT MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DR. TAIT’S WEB SITE BLOG BEING “LOST”?

lAGUNA WOODS, CA

[Ed. Just copy the text and put it in a word processor…this is my style.]

Hi Leo,
I just read a post at Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=10447#10447
It shows the signatures of both documents blown up. It seems very obvious that they were signed by different people. I’m not sure how this can be used but it has to mean something and there has to be a reason why they needed to forge one of the documents. Probably the one for Hawaii as they insisted on having the Constitutional language.
Just sayin’.
Jimmy

During the 2008 campaign, when Hilliary and Obama were very close and fighting for electorial votes, I remember someone from the Hillary camp saying, “we have information about Obama that if released would devastate his presidential campaign. I heard this said more than once, and from several different news sources. The information was never released.

Now when I think back on what was said, I wonder if the information was that Hillary knows for certain that Obama is ineligible to be president? Why would Hillary not release the information that might have allowed her to win? Perhaps the skeletons in Hillary’s closet were in danger of being released by Obama’s campaign? There are so many possiblites about who knows the truth about Obama’s eligibilty.

Has the DNC responded yet to the question, “why are there two versions of the 2008 presidentilal certification letter, one for Hawaii, and one for the other 49 states?

Leo, you just blow me away with your brilliant, legal analysis on one of the most complex issues of POTUS elegibility in the history of America. Every time you close one legal door, you open another! I went for the two-doc issue from JB Williams last week and was going to send them as love letters to the CIA, FBI and that astroturf speaker of the House, Pelosi. However, after reading comments and your replies, I junked the idea in the expectation of your reception of the 2000 and 2004 certifications.

That last comment you made, “To pretend that McCain wasn’t a Panama citizen at birth is a fraud. And that’s exactly what has led to the other fraud in the White House. McCain sold you out. That’s why he’s not in court for Quo Warranto. Where is your war hero now? He’s out there shilling for his boss, Obama”….. just about knocked me out and put me down for the count. You confirmed for me, the debates between Obama and McCain’s campaign, were a freakin put-on by McCain who seemed he was just an old punching bag for the usurper to pound on. McCain was chosen as the designated loser and tanked for the Manchurian Candidate to be elected. And, that is the reason McCain picked Sarah Palin to be VP who was then thrown under the bus by having her go on interview with Gibson and Couric who sandbagged her on national TV.

One more note: Soros, the banker for Obamarxist, just might have caused the financial meltdown through the Stock Market via foreign investors, so that Bush and McCain would look bad, take the heat and put Obama in the WH.

What a freakin mess our beloved America is in and the terrible Constitutional crisis when Obamination is found out to be the usurper in chief. Keep at the great work Leo, we are praying for you and all those patriots who are fighting the good fight for our country. God bless you, stay safe, Obamination’s creeps are out for blood and they play for keeps.

When your case first surfaced at the SCOTUS, it did not make it from conference because it only had, I presume, the vote of Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Does that mean the other 6 Justices voted against it, or does it mean they did nothing? Did the treacherous Bickell (one wonders about his background) not distribute the brief to all Justices? Were some Justices absent from the conference?

It continues to astound me that 4 Justices of the SCOTUS would not want to rule on a key Constitutional question. It’s supremely ironic that BHO, Jr.’s successor, Hillary Clinton, also holds her present post in direct contravention of Constitutional mandates, and further, that she received confirmation from the Senate, in spite of this glaring violation of a specific constitutional sanction.

If a case does make it to conference again, how can you keep Bickell out of it?

Leo, I am not sure where or if I read it correctly on some blog but, could it be that Hawaii has a clause in its election laws that requires the nominees for POTUS and VP to be “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” and, therefore, Pelosi sent that doc 1. to them? And, sent doc 2. without that clause to the other 49 states? That may be the reason, as you said, “they wanted to cover their ass” because the long form birth certificate may have something on it that makes obama ineligible to be POTUS??? But, what if Hawaii does not have that law on the books and they are covering their butts in any future investigation and discovery of what the hell is in obama’s records that he keeps sealed! Am I making a point or am I just babbling nonsense?

99.061 Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office.–
……..
(7)(a) In order for a candidate to be qualified, the following items must be received by the filing officer by the end of the qualifying period:
……..
2. The candidate’s oath required by s. 99.021, which must contain the name of the candidate as it is to appear on the ballot; the office sought, including the district or group number if applicable; and the signature of the candidate, duly acknowledged.

Now, in 99.021 it gives the oath required to be signed by the candidate for federal office:

2. Each candidate for federal office, whether a party candidate, a candidate with no party affiliation, or a write-in candidate, in order to qualify for nomination or election to office shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing. A printed copy of the oath or affirmation shall be furnished to the candidate by the officer before whom such candidate seeks to qualify and shall be substantially in the following form:

State of Florida

County of _____

Before me, an officer authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared (please print name as you wish it to appear on the ballot) , to me well known, who, being sworn, says that he or she is a candidate for the office of _____; that he or she is qualified under the Constitution and laws of the United States to hold the office to which he or she desires to be nominated or elected; and that he or she has qualified for no other public office in the state the term of which office or any part thereof runs concurrent with that of the office he or she seeks.
……
(Signature of candidate)

So if this was properly executed in Florida, doesnt the Sect’ of State have a sworn duty to uphold the statute if someone had made any challenge to Obama’s constitutional qualifications prior to the election and certification?

Seems like there was objections in Florida, why wouldnt the Sect’ of State Require competent proof if such qualifications were objected too?

[ed. I don’t care about the RNC certs… the RNC are more to blame for this than the DNC since the RNC ran a candidate who could not challenge usurpation. Screw the RNC. Comparing the DNC cert to the RNC cert is a partisan form of hooplah… the only thing which matters on this issue is whether he DNC certs for Hawaii in 2000 and 2004 match the 2008 DNC cert to Hawaii which has the legally qualified language. If those Hawaii certs differ, then we have some evidence Hawaii was nervous in 2008.]